Faeyza Mufti and I worked on this assignment together, so we created a group reflection and our own individual reflections. To access our course, please visit Canvas: https://canvas.ubc.ca/courses/5445.
Group Reflection
We have designed the course using constructivist and active learning approaches (Chickering & Ehrmann, 1996). As the course is on writing, we wanted to provide students with ample opportunities to practice writing and apply the principles they learn in the course. For this, we have created a variety of interactions and activities that utilize social constructivism for students to discuss their ideas and improve overall writing abilities (Fitzgerald & Ianetta, 2016, p. 33). Our intention with creating a purely online course is for students to build a community of practice that is learner-centred but also socially constructed. Thus, there is opportunity for students to develop their own authentic writing voices while gaining from the input of peers and the course instructor. This is why students have plenty of opportunities for feedback and discussion but also complete the major assignments by themselves.
Thinking about a community centered approach and peer-to-peer interactions (Anderson, 2008), we have included discussions among cohorts as a way for constructing new knowledge, listening to multiple perspectives, and sharing ideas. As “frequent assignments and detailed (written) feedback are central to student learning” (Gibbs & Simpson, 2005, p. 9), we have designed three formative assignments that are based on different genres of writing (bibliography, short essay, and the digital essay). Each assignment scaffolds the students to apply their learning in the following assignments and assessments. Reflection writing has been added to these assignments for meta-cognition, encouraging students to assess and reflect on their learning and be more self-aware (Boud, Keogh, & Walker, 1985; Gibbs & Simpson, 2005). In exploiting the benefits of two-staged assignments and creating opportunities for quick feedback (Gibbs & Simpson, 2005), while respecting the instructor’s time and workload, we have additionally incorporated peer review for these three formative assignments.
Furthermore, while we had to design quizzes solely to meet the 565A assignment requirements, we added them strategically into the course design and included follow-up skill building discussion activities so that students can learn through problem solving, observation, and solved examples (Anderson, 2008). This way, students are able to share their formative understanding and self-monitor their learning, making the assessment both valuable and practical. Finally, we made sure that the summative assessment is engaging, challenging, and designed for lasting impression (Veletsianos, 2011). The final assignment utilizes what students have learned about academic writing and new media in a context that is relevant to the course, such as submitting the final project on YouTube.
The welcome video and weekly announcements from the instructor (Taylor, 2017) have been planned as a way to build a repertoire for student-teacher interaction. The course introduction module explains not only the purpose and objectives of the course, but also the rationale for the activities and assignments so students can have a better understanding of the expectations and workload. The introductory icebreaker activity has been designed to be simple and fun so that students are encouraged to post early and can spend more time building knowledge and interacting with their peers. The course is on writing and new media, so we wanted a balance to have something that allows them to “write” yet also think about new media and how it has changed the way we write. Thus, we asked them to introduce themselves using a #hashtag. We kept the media choices open, allowing them to share pictures or videos of interest to provide flexibility. This is also to set the stage for communication and interaction in the course along the same lines. While it is important to us that students feel comfortable getting in touch with the course instructor, we also want students to take advantage of peer-guided discussions, such as the Student Cafe, to reduce the pressure of continuous student-teacher interaction.
Understanding that interaction can take many forms, we also wanted to implement Bates’s (2014) suggestion to motivate learners to interact with the learning materials. Thus, the assigned course text and other materials have been embedded (see the skill building discussion activity “The Quest for Informed Content!” as an example where the activity explicitly makes reference to the text) into the assessments, assignments, and overall course design so that it is relevant and a just-in-time support for learners. Our intention with the different types of interactions in this course is to have a balance of student-student, student-teacher, and student-content interactions that support the course objectives and invite students to think about their writing in wider contexts outside of the post-secondary institution.
While designing a course for online learning allowed us to think in many new ways, the four main challenges that we encountered were:
- Providing adequate time for students to work on the assignments
- Spacing assignments and activities evenly across the course so that students do not get overwhelmed
- Including peer review with sufficient time for draft construction and revision
- Formatting Canvas created rubrics
We believe that we found ways to work around these limitations without sacrificing the interactions or overarching goals of the course. For example, we included peer review dates and expectations directly in the course syllabus. This way, students can prepare for this type of interaction. Also, the Canvas rubric templates offered variety, but they were really difficult to format, especially when we wanted to show the breakdown of marks. You will notice that we copied the original rubrics into the assignment descriptions and also included the Canvas created rubrics below that (with errors). We kept these tables with errors (in the breakdown of marks) to show how we would provide structured feedback for students. Unfortunately, it is not completely correct, but still gets the point across. Overall, we had a great experience working together, even if Canvas did provide challenges we did not anticipate from the outset of the project.
Individual Reflection
Faeyza and I decided that for the purposes of the assignment, she would be course designer and I would be course instructor. Thinking about my role as an instructor in this environment was completely new for me, and a good challenge. It was not until this project that I understood Anderson’s (2008) claim that “sufficient levels of deep and meaningful learning can be developed as long as one of the three forms of interaction (student-teacher; student-student; student-content) is at very high levels” (p. 67). At the beginning of MET, I thought there was no way one or two forms of interaction could be offered at a minimal level and not degrade overall learning! However, I now see that it is possible if the course has been designed to be learner-, knowledge-, assessment-, and community-centred. In fact, I think it is not only possible, but also really important for student self-regulation and healthy boundaries. This is why we emphasize collaboration and presence in our course design, shifting the responsibility for learning solely from the teacher to that of a joint endeavour. Students can monitor their own success through their interactions with the learning material, course instructor, and their peers. As Bates (2014) argued, instructors must be mindful of selecting tools that will support different interactions while also putting the learner in control.
Our mission was to utilize the affordances of Canvas (e.g., discussion boards, formative assessments) while also introducing new media tools such as Touchcast videos and #hashtags. Our hope is that utilizing media will help students become comfortable interacting with old and new media, which is what they have to learn to do throughout the course and demonstrate in the final summative assignment. At times, students are digesting new information, but there is still an overarching principle that students are active producers of their own knowledge. The strong visual presence in our course supports both the learning outcomes and the content we intend to cover. For example, we tell stories and use metaphors in the videos, helping students analyze their own roles and responsibilities in the course.
Online writing comes with its own sets of challenges, including sharing our work with a wider audience than we might normally be accustomed to. The focus on formative feedback supports the idea that writing is a process with lots of opportunity for input and revision. The purpose of unlocking some of the discussion posts after students have submitted their work is to challenge them to construct their own understanding first and then share ideas and discuss any misconceptions after submission. This helps students once again regulate their own learning and practice the individual and joint nature of academic writing. These guiding principles of practice and consistent input are carried through the whole course. Formative assessments provide multiple opportunities for students to reconsider knowledge, and the final summative assessment is a reflection of scaffolding and feedback from the entire semester. Recognizing that students need choice and flexibility in their learning, we tried to keep the course open and fluid, but also provide boundaries and clear expectations for interacting, engaging in assessments, learning, and building a community of academic writers. Selecting tools to support these intentions was an enjoyable experience and taught me a lot about utilizing the affordances of an LMS while also knowing when to look elsewhere and not completely rely on the LMS itself!
References
Anderson, T. (2008). Towards a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson & F. Elloumi
(Eds.), Theory and practice of online learning. Edmonton AB: Athabasca University. Retrieved from http://www.aupress.ca/books/120146/ebook/02_Anderson_2008-Theory_and_Practice_of_Online_Learning.pdf
Bates, T. (2014). Choosing and using media in education: The SECTIONS model. In
Teaching in digital age. Retrieved from https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/part/9-pedagogical-differences-between-media/
Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Reflection: Turning experience into learning.
London, UK: Kogan Page.
Chickering, A. W., & Ehrmann, S., C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles:
Technology as lever. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 49(2), 3-6. Retrieved from http://www.aahea.org/articles/sevenprinciples.htm
Fitzgerald, L., & Ianetta, M. (2016). The Oxford guide for writing tutors: Practice and
research. New York, NY: Oxford UP.
Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2005). Conditions under which assessment supports
students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1(1), 3-31. Retrieved from http://www.open.ac.uk/fast/pdfs/Gibbs%20and%20Simpson%202004-05.pdf
Taylor, A. H. (2017). A Peer Review Guide for Online Courses at Penn State [PDF file].
Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved from https://facdev.e-education.psu.edu/sites/default/files/files/PeerReview_OnlineCourses_PSU_Guide_13June2017.pdf
Veletsianos, G. (2011). Designing Opportunities for Transformation with Emerging
Technologies. Educational Technology, 51(2), 41-46. Retrieved from https://educationaltechnology.net/educational-technology-journals-peer-reviewed/